Caer Adamant Melee Practice

I've had dreams of helping to build a melee practice in the area ever since getting back into this game 3 years ago.

A little background, if you will.  I started fighting in 1993.  The people I met were melee fighters.  What does that mean?  That means if we had four people in armor, we were NOT doing singles.  Ever.  We never went to tourneys, and fought maybe 5-7 melee events a year plus Pennsic.  One of the highlights of my formative years as a fighter is from a time period between ~1996 and 1998.  Every Thursday a friend of ours would clean up his warehouse in Washington D.C. and we'd cram into it 8-20 fighters and do melees until we couldn't do them anymore.  We called it "The Dog Pound," and it was here that I went from being a guy in armor to an effective melee fighter.

There are many fighters in this are who have similar goals, and some have implemented them quite well.  The monthly Southern Army Practice is one example of a well run, consistent, high attendance melee practice.

I approached the Caer Adamant Knight's marshall and with the help of a few other fighters, we have started a monthly melee practice in Newark, De.  Yay us!


The Focus of Practice

After about a year of discussing tactics with Sir Thorson, and topped off with a good conversation with Joseph from Serpentius, I've been convinced that the Dog Pound style of practice may not be what's suitable for the fighters in this area.  Some of it is the age of the fighters, some of it is the value that can be gotten from some variety and structure, and some of it is the varying levels of fighters and the enthusiasm that they may or may not bring to a melee practice.  In short, we aren't dealing with a group of 25-35 year olds, all with similar fighting experiences.

With that said, we agreed that we wanted to keep the stick time high, but focus a little more on drills.  With that said, Sir Thorson brought out some really good drills that he learned from his Northern Army days, and we brought in a bridge scenario that has worked in the past.


The Drills

3on3 "Bridge" Drill

The first one we did was on a narrow "bridge" that was outlined with a rope and had a line across the center that neither side could cross.  The bridge was just wide enough for three people to fit in one rank.   Three people on each side fought across from each other with a line of people waiting to replace someone if they died so that we always had a 3on3.  Fighters were encouraged to change teams after they died.  We kept the weapons mix to at least one shield per team of three, and no more than one spear per team of three.  Shields were also encouraged to fight all the way up on the line (in other words, if one team had a spear and the other didn't, you couldn't just stand out of range and let the spear do all the killing).

The focus was to work on communicating, shifting positions on the line, and fighting in close.  This was not really intended to be a tactical drill.

Resurrection Bridge Battle

With a 9 foot wide bridge, we divided up the sides evenly (by skill and weapon mix) and fought an unlimited resurrection battle.  Every minute a stop was called and whomever controlled the middle got a point.  We did a best of 5.

3on3 Loser Stays and Gains a Fighter Battles

Joe had told me about this and Thorson suggested it today.  I really wasn't sure how it would play out, but it turned out to be a very good scenario.  I don't normally like even sides for small team battles because they tend to break off into a bunch of 1on1s, but only the first battle was a 3on3.  The rest were 4on3, 5on3, and a couple of 6on3s.

You begin with a 3on3.  After the battle is resolved, the losing team stays on the field and picks up a fighter from the winning team.  A new team of three comes on the field and fights the team of four.  Whomever loses stays on the field and picks up a person from the winning team.  Sometimes the team of three would win which would create a team of five and as much as six in a couple of instances.

3on1 Five Second Fights

I've always liked 2on1 drills, but the 3on1 added an extra layer toward learning to work together as a team.  Each battle lasted five seconds (being counted down out loud by someone not fighting).  The goal was for the three person team to move together and cut off the single fighter.  The single fighter, on the other hand, would try to pivot off of one of the flankers to avoid being hit by the other two fighters.


Lessons Learned

Bridge Scenarios

The first two battle scenarios went pretty well.  There were mainly just some individual tips given to fighters here and there.  During the bridge battle, some shields were starting to do solo charges, and it got sloppy.  They'd initially gain some ground, but ultimately get killed or pushed off the bridge, and the hole left behind them would allow for the opponent to push the line back.

Small Team Scenarios

I had a disagreement on tactics with another fighter, and with what has been standard teaching in the East Kingdom in general.  The general tactic is to "stick together" and either move left or right.  The idea is that whatever direction you move in, you will have all of your fighters facing a smaller number of their fighters.

I'll contend that while this is generally an acceptable strategy with units of 5 or more fighters, it starts to break down with fewer fighters.  In fact, most of the success that has been demonstrated, in my opinion, is because the opposing unit is confined to the same strategy.  Now that's not to say that this isn't a good teaching mechanism to get fighters used to fighting on a larger scale, but I do think that seasoned melee fighters can benefit from different tactics.

Below is an example of how sticking together failed in a 3on2 encounter (this is from last season).  Red split apart and green decided to run after one fighter while they stuck together.  The fighter they went after ran away while the fighter that was left alone took an easy shot at a green fighter who was running in another direction.

Having put a ton of thought and practice into the 3on2, more often than not I believe the two need to split, which means the three need to split as well.  This leaves a 1on1 and a 2on1.  All else being equal, the two need to kill the one quickly while their third fighter needs to play defensively.  The opposite is true for the other team.  The one that is being double teamed needs to play defensively while his partner tries to win the single matchup.

The 3on4 is a little trickier, and it depends entirely on ability levels and weapons mixes, but again, the smaller team generally wants to split the fight up to see if they can either tie up fighters or draw them out, and try to win the matchups that have the best odds on the field.

Below is an example of a 3on4 that I was part of today.  The other side had two solid, fast shieldmen and two poles that were a little bigger and a little slower.  We had a fast moving veteran shieldman, a fast moving veteran pole fighter (me), and a newer, yet very fast pole fighter.

We knew that if we stuck together, one of their fast shields would get around a flank and kill us quickly.  We knew that neither of their shieldmen would let our shieldman get near the poles or around the flanks.  We also knew that their biggest threats would be the two shieldmen.

Our plan was to split wide. I'd take on one of their shieldmen and hope to get a kill, our shieldman would try to take on their other shieldman and get the kill, and our pole in the middle would run around and try to draw out both of their poles and stall until we could get to him.

Sometimes the team of four will try to double up on one of the flanks which can often give the pole in the middle a quick kill shot on one side or the other since he's only worried about a single threat in front of him.

3on1 Scenarios

As usual, the single fighters generally did pretty well in these.  Most of the better fighters looked at the flanks and figured out which fighter was the easier one to pivot off of.  They'd back pedal a bit to draw out the fight, and then move hard at one of the flanks and hope to turn the corner, using that flanker as a shield to cut off the other two guys on his team.

There were two things that I personally felt that the teams of three were not doing well in some of the fights.  They either out sprinted their slowest team member, often over running their opponent as he'd side step to get out of the way, or they'd cross in front of their teammates and cut them off from the fight.

In these scenarios, the left fighter needs to stay to the left and focus on attacking the left half of his opponent (or fouling his weapon).  The right fighter needs to stay to the right and focus on attacking the right half of the fighter.

Interestingly, I have noticed a common pattern with 2on1s, 3on1s, and 4on1s.  So many fighters have this instinct to both outrun run their teammates (maybe to get the glory of the kill???), and to attack the side opposite of where they are starting from.  Its been so long since I've fought like this that I really can't pinpoint exactly why that is.  Are they subconsciously trying to cut off their own guys to so that they can force it into a 1on1?  Is their momentum carrying them to the opposite side of their opponent when they run at them?  Is there a subconscious draw toward the middle of their opponent rather than their side or back?  I really don't have an answer to this question, but it is something I have observed in a large number of fighters.